Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 10:14:35 -0400 (EDT) From: john@quonix.net To: Vasil Dimov <vd@datamax.bg> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, John Von Essen <john@quonix.net> Subject: Re: iftop... Message-ID: <20050603101236.V30647@beck.quonix.net> In-Reply-To: <20050603071323.GA69443@sinanica.bg.datamax> References: <13f6e3df2305b912e42aa453570a8c55@quonix.net> <20050603071323.GA69443@sinanica.bg.datamax>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Thanks. I was searching through mailing lists for iftop, and the original author did talk about forking issues, but then mentioned that he had no time to debug. I use iftop all the time, especially since many of my switches dont do bandwidth monitoring. Its a real pain killing those pids everytime! -john On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Vasil Dimov wrote: > On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 09:10:00PM -0400, John Von Essen wrote: > > Ports is listed as the maintainer for this package. > > > > I have noticed (4.10) that when you quit out of iftop (version 0.16) > > two PIDs remain in the background. If you run iftop again, another two > > PID's are left, bringing it up to four, and so on. > > > > Eventually, after the third or fourth time, you get: > > > > interface: fxp0 > > Cannot obtain hardware address on this platform > > IP address is: 146.145.66.91 > > pcap_open_live(fxp0): (no devices found) /dev/bpf4: No such file or > > directory > > > > This behavior doesn't exist on Linux or Solaris platform. Should I > > submit a PR, or contact iftop developers first and see what they have > > to say? > > > > PS - I'm not subscribed to the list, so please include my address in > > your reply. > > > > Thanks > > John > > Iftop's fork resolver is buggy. We should choose another one at > configure-time. I will take care of that port. >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050603101236.V30647>